Romans 1:16-22
from the Good Ol' King James
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
And from the Message:
It's news I'm most proud to proclaim, this extraordinary Message of God's powerful plan to rescue everyone who trusts Him, starting with Jews and then right on to everyone else! God's way of putting people right shows up in the acts of faith, confirming what Scripture has said all along:
"The person in right standing before God by trusting Him really lives."
But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is. By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see, eternal power, for instance and the mystery of His divine being. So nobody has a good excuse. What happened was this. People knew God perfectly well, but when they didn't treat Him like God, refusing to worship Him, they trivilalized themselves into silliness and confusion, so that there was neither sense nor direction lift in their lives."
So this section of Scripture is often at the center of the debate over what God does in the case of people who never had or have the chance to hear the Gospel. Most people who read these words understand that Paul is saying no one has an excuse, because the existance of God and His nature is evident in nature. (The heavens and earth declare His glory - Psalm 19:1). At the same time many say, all those millions of people are lost - destined to a devil's hell fire, because not one of them choose to worship the creator.(Romand 3:10-12)
Biblically speaking, we know that up until Babel, all people knew the story - basically all people had at least Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 11:9. Some people believe that the story of Job also dates before Babel. The great flood and the promised savior are themes present in most cultures.
In Genesis 12 we see the setting apart, the calling to holiness of Abraham and God's chosen people. With the promise that: "in thee all nations will be blessed." It is clear in the Old Testament, that every time the words elect or chosen are used it refers to the Jewish nation.
My contention is that it is the same in the New Testament. At least that is how the earliest Christians understood the words. However, most scholars who translated the Bible, whether into Latin, German, or English held strong anti-jew sentaments. From that hatred came the "doctrine" or teaching of predestination. I am not alone in this way of looking at things, but it seems that the most orthadox, born again Christians consider that a false doctrine worthy of the label heresy.
But back to Romans 1.
I've been praying through this a lot as I've driven through the desert, the dry land of New Mexico, and looked off the high places into the river valleys below, lush and vibrantly green. As I've looked at the cresent moon in the eastern sky.
Just what is it about God that can be seen, that can be known, by looking at His creation?
God is a god of infinite variety. How many shades of green? How many shades of blue?
Plants, birds, wild flowers - such a vast variety of patterns and styles. And even in dry and barren places, His creativity shows through, and there is life everywhere.
God is a god of order. Even in apparent chaos there is order. I wonder at how the most vast of His creations - galaxies, solar systems resemble the tinest of His creations, atoms. I wonder at the dance the planets make around the sun, and the dance the suns make around their galaxies, with a set rhythm and purpose. The life cycles, the water cycles, the seasons, the phases of the moon. God is a god of order. He designed it, He planned it, He keeps it in order.
God is a god of power, and His power can not be contained. We see it in storms, earthquakes, volcanos. He has allowed us to harness some of that energy. Water, fire, wind...still He demonstrates through creation that ultimate control is His not ours.
Biblically speaking God has used fires, and storms, and even insects to get our attention.
We used to call earthquakes and hurricanes "acts of God".
No one wants to think of a god who would cause/will Hurricane katrina, or the Earthquake in Indonesia. Biblically speaking, God also uses a nations enemies to get their attention. But woe to the few preachers who dared to say, even in a whisper, that 911 was a wake up call from God to a goddless nation.
I think the problem is the way human minds comprehend death. How can God allow the death of a child in any kind of catastrophy or from any kind of serious illness? How can God will it?
The Bible tells us that God is Love (1st John). So how can a loving God...
I ask, what is the big deal about death anyway? If it is a child, we are pretty confident that their entrance into heaven is guarenteed (although some say that even aborted babies go to hell because they never had a chance to be baptized - or to accept Jesus).
I'm getting off track and running out of time...
Just remember what I said about God being a god of order - that there is a pattern and a method and Nature shows us that from death comes life, the cycle continues. The death of a saint, or an innocent child is often an act of mercy...of God's allowing them to move on to the next phase, and they go to a place that they would not wish to return from. Why do people go hungry, suffer from disease, live in poverty? Aren't we as Christians commanded to feed the hungry and clothe the naked? God has a plan to take care of those masses. We are His plan.
but that is another post
blessings
25 comments:
Please....
The doctrine of predestination came from the anti-semitiism? Of course all the reformers were anti-semites. Why don't you just rewrite all history? Talk about post-modern revisionism.
I am not a double predestinationist/calvinist in my theology, however I find these statements to be troubling.
Romans 1 tells us that ALL men who have ever lived, or will live deny God. There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ, period.
Paul never says that if men acknowledged that there is creator, then they are saved.
Creation testifies as to His existence, it does not tell us His name, i.e. who He is. Paul says that "namely" His divine nature, and eternal power are the attributes of God shown in creation. he is very specific. Creation does not reveal the "Father". Only Jesus Christ reveals the total nature of the Father, otherwise we can be saved through the creation? Paul's point is that, such a thing is not possible. Men will always deny God if it is left up to them.
Romans 11 tells me that I am in-grafted into the tree so I am now one of the "elect". Therefore all references in Scripture as to the elect, or chosen, apply to all who are His.
The olive tree is Israel and Israel is both Jew and Gentile, any who believe by grace through faith.
Merely having creation/flood/savior stories does not predispose anyone to believe.
Why would it be neccessary to have God supply the faith to belief?
Eph 2:8-9
Why would someone have to come and preach the Word? Romans 10:11-17
In our quest to define God's love, let us not interject our ideas as to what we imagine a loving God looks like, but rather let Him define Himself from the Scriptures en toto.
word man - "In our quest to define God's love, let us not interject our ideas as to what we imagine a loving God looks like, but rather let Him define Himself from the Scriptures en toto."
Let us not interject our ideas? Leave our minds dormant, then, on what the words mean? This seems silly. In this way, only the bible itself might be saved. We have to interject our minds, otherwise the effort is pointless.
"Of course all the reformers were anti-semites. Why don't you just rewrite all history?"
Much as you have rewritten history by your implication that this is what she said?
"Why would it be neccessary to have God supply the faith to belief?"
A question I have long had. Do you have the answer?
MaryEllen - "But woe to the few preachers who dared to say, even in a whisper, that 911 was a wake up call from God to a goddless nation."
The word would be "godless". I wouldn't be one to normally attack a typo, and in truth I do not do so here, I am just curious as to whether the typo might be Freudian, making the word look closer to "goddess"?
two quick comments before I go to bed after a long, exhausting day...
no Wanderer - it was merely an accident I did not mean it to look like goddess...
and Word Man - although there is much in you comment to reply to, and I've been there many times, I would say that God does not provide the faith to believe, but rather the grace to believe. I did not say all reformers were anti-semites, I will not say that all postmodern theologians are heretics. We do not have to interject our ideas in defining God's love, His word does that clearly enough, and should His word not be enough, there is always the cross. I'll have more to say once I get some sleep.
Predestination is in the bible, it didn't come from antisemites, unless you are saying that the biblical authors were antisemites. Aside from the word Predestination itself being in the bible, Election is a subset of predestination, relating to humans and angels. Election is all over the place in the bible. There's no getting away from it. Perhaps you should take another look:
http://oldtruth.com/calvinism
Hebrews 4:2 For also we have had the gospel preached, as well as them. But the Word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
Sounds like God gives the faith....
Hey some anonymous, nameless guy/girl - "Hebrews 4:2 For also we have had the gospel preached, as well as them. But the Word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
Sounds like God gives the faith.... "
Way to go with the non-sequitor. Oddly enough, looking at that, I could make as much of a connection in saying, "Well, looks like KFC gives the faith."
How exactly does the lack of faith in this story say that God was withholding? For that matter, why was God holding back? Was it an antiquated April Fools joke?
We need some substance to your arguments here, us non-believers are starving for your guidance.
Well I did not want to get involved, but;
God gives the faith, We do not possess it innately.
Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. So they faith to believe comes only from God. Even if you say that God gives the grace to believe , I would ask, what is the actual difference? If you can't believe, without Him giving grace to do so, then what good is the "faith" you think you have. You would not be able to use it. Of course the implication is that we then must be able to save ourselves.
Eph 2:8-10 says that everything that pertains to salvation,i.e. grace, faith,and even the good works that we do are provided by the Almighty.
I would also say that the comments re" anti-semitism and predestination are very vague. The implication here is that all who espouse predestination are anti-semitic.
If Israel is the "elect/chosen" of God then the argument falls apart as elect implies "predestined/chosen", and since God chose Israel, it is obviously not an anti-semitic theology.
My Bible says that we are ingrafted into the "Israeli olive tree" therefore all who are ingrafted, are the elect. Israel is jew and gentile, not just the Hebrews. That was God's plan from the beginning.
Jim, I know predestination is in the Bible, but the word and doctrine can be explained in a variety of ways. I know my way of looking at these things is not exactly "orthadox" yet I am not alone in my interpretation of this subject. Believe me I've been looking long and hard.
Romans talks about the obedience that comes from faith.
Hebrews 3:7b-8 Today if you will hear His voice Do not harden your hearts...4:6 those who did not enter because of disobedience...
4:16 Let us come boldly to the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy and find grace...11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Hi for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewardere of those who diligently seek Him. 11:39 And all thses having obtained a good testimony through faith did not receive the promise...what do all these beautiful, rich verses mean? What point am I making? What point were you making anonymous?
Chris, I've been studying through Romans 10 (9,10,11) also. I'm not sure the section Faith comes from hearing and Hearing from the WORD of God proves that only those to whom God grants faith can have faith. I'll stick with the formula in verses 9 - 10. with the heart one believes, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
and really Chris, you know I am NOT saying that they who espouse predestination are anti-semitic. I am saying the doctrine of predestination was introduced by people, some of whom were anti-semitic and there by needed another explaination of the elect and predestined/chosen one. Aside from the fact that the Jews of Jesus's time and before believed (rightly) that they were the chosen ones, this idea of an elect few was not taught until about 300 ad. Paul is very clear that Gentiles can be grafted in to the chosen group by confessing that Jesus is LORD. By believing in their hearts the Gospel. I see Him telling them to make the choice, not that the choice has already been made for them.
Chris - Has it occurred to you that the base of these verses might be that as creator, all things come from God, including by definition our faith, being born of us who were born of Him?
Sure, if God is omnipotent, then I couldn't believe in Him unless He let me. Still, are we preaching that there is anyone whom He does not allow to believe? Does He not offer it to all of us to do so, and such, doesn't this argument lose relevance? Kind of like saying you aren't a true respirator unless God allows you to breathe?
Maryellen you wrote re: anti-semitism;
"From that hatred came the "doctrine" or teaching of predestination."
So then one can include if you believe in Calvinist double-predestination, you are either outrightly, or unknowingly agreeing with anti-semitism.
One more point, I have never said that those mentioned in Ropmans 1 are damned. I say that you cannot be saved by looking at nature. There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ.
Paul's issue is to present the need for Christ. He is saying that even while looking at creation, men cannot bring themselves to acknowledge a "creator" That would be more than their pride could stand.
The modern day equivilents are, Darwinism, big bang theories etc.
Wanderer,
God gives both grace and faith according to Ephesians 2:8-9 IOW, one exists because of the other. So if God has poured out His grace on all men, it is possible for men to attain to faith. That is done as Romans 10:17 says, only by the hearing of the Word. This is not just any word, it is the true Word of the true Gospel. The verses in Romans 10 which precede that verse tell us that someone must go and preach it. So one cannot attain to faith unless he somehow hears the Word.
Regardless, it all comes from outside of ourselves directly from God, i.e. the message, the grace the faith. that is the summation of all the Scriptures.
BTW, God does allow us to breath. Acts 17:28
"for in Him we live, and move, and have our being"
All creation exists by God's grace alone.
Chris - Such harping on the hearing, and yet surely you recognize this as a time reflexive statement. It wouldn't say men could learn by reading, because men didn't read, and mass printing of the scriptures was unavailable.
It seems that in truth, if you stick to these scriptural points, the issue is in fact that men learn only by the sharing of the word of God. It is the only sensible interpretation since your loving God is certainly not damning deaf people off hand.
As such, if the word must be shared, in the mass printing and mass communication now available, the word need not be intended for the reader. One can initiate their own search and find the answers (or some of them) on sites like this, online bibles and etc...
But then there is this claim that no man seeks God. An open fallacy that I can point to in my own life alone. Men seek. Men find. No longer just by hearing, but in myriad formats. Further, according to your beliefs, these options were afforded according to God's plan. As is this conversation so according.
Thus, brought down to base principles, we are again arguing about pigmentation rather than agreeing that the sky is blue.
Wanderer I will borrow the Scripture that I posted at Maryellen's latest post above:
Romans 3:
"9What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:
"None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
14"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
19Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin."
Paul is quoting from
Psalms 14-36-53-59-104-107
Proverbs 1:16
Isaiah 59:7-8
Paul is also using the all inclusive "no one"
So the claim that no man seeks God comes from His Word, i.e. God Himself, not from me.
As for my "harping" on the hearing of the Word. That entails so much more than listening. The Hebrew word for hearing implies that whatever it is you hear, you must understand and do it. Paul who wrote the letter to the Romans beibng a good Hebrew pharisee would comprehend this. So if one "hears" the Word, whether it be
spoken through another person audibly or read on a page, or ???,
you must act on i8t, The Scriptures are clear that in order to act you must have faith, and to have faith, God must grant it to you.
Men do not seek Yahweh. However they will seek anyone, or anything, but Him. That is the true meaning of Ecclesiastes 3:11.
Isaiah says that God reveals Himself to whomever He chooses.
The revealing of God in creation spoken of in Romans 1, is not the revelation of the Father. That comes only through the one and only begotten of God, Jesus the Christ. 2 Cor 5:16-21
Anyway our essential area of disagreement, and it is a big one is, that you believe either that Yahweh does not exist, or if He does, He is not the true God or even one of many Gods. In addition you do not believe that the Scriptures are inerrant, infallible and authoritative. Therefore we will never come to an agreement, as I see the Scriptures as the absolutely true Word of God. They are my foundation for any debate.
The question isn't that the sky is blue; it is which "blue sky" are you looking at?
Salvation is not an "intellectual" pursuit.
"Salvation is not an 'intellectual' pursuit."
If this is truly the case, why are there so many discussions, and why do you still attempt to explain to me?
Paul draws some interesting correlations, but all of you folks seem to forget that he was a man just as you. As such, fallible, as you. To state "Paul says this, so it must be so." Sounds dangerously close to worshipping false gods to me.
The question isn't that the sky is blue; it is which 'blue sky' are you looking at?"
An odd statement. How many skies are there in your world?
We do not live in the same world, so to speak. That is the issue.
No one worships Paul. The Bible is God breathed and is the very Word of God Himself. They are not Paul's thoughts or musings. All men are infallible, however men can make, and have made, infallible statements and writings.
I am not attempting to explain anything to you. I simply answer any and all falsehoods with the Truth of the Word. Whether or not you agree or believe is your problem not mine. My comments are directed towards the post and the other comments. You seem to struggle sticking to that.
"My comments are directed towards the post and the other comments. You seem to struggle sticking to that."
Point to one comment I have made, particularly to you, that has not taken and italicized the portion of the comment I was refferring to. Failing that task, explain how I am failing to stick to the point? The conversations do evolve sometimes, but real conversations do that.
"I am not attempting to explain anything to you. I simply answer any and all falsehoods with the Truth of the Word."
So when I ask you for answers, you are not being a decent human being and providing them for me, but rather coincedentally expounding on issues I just asked about?
"Whether or not you agree or believe is your problem not mine."
I agree, and have not, nor will I ever attempt to foist that responsibility on you.
As for the Paul thing, I am not cutting and pasting, as I am presuming I read the typo as it was intended. "All men are fallible, but they can create infallible works." Is the message I presume you are sharing.
I don't believe this is true. Nor do I think it fits in with doctrine. I think that only God can provide the infallible works. However, bear equally in mind that Paul never claimed to be infallible nor did he claim his writings so. Those who decided to label his writings as part of scripture were also fallible men.
No matter how much Paul understood, it seems more sensible to focus on comparing this to the words of Jesus, and bearing in mind that subjects that Paul brought up that Jesus didn't, for all good intention, could be wrong.
At least that's how I see it. Presuming his words go beyond inspired to infallible, would have to rate him as also being infallible. Thus the false god association. Not different worlds, just good old fashioned logic.
Unless something crude or hateful come across, I will let this discussion continue as long as it does, Wanderer's questions are always welcome, but I don't expect Chris to feel He has to answer every question asked on my site in my comments. Nor will I attempt to answer every question. Chris says to Wanderer, "we do not live in the same world, so to speak"...Yet I feel that I live in the same world as both of you. The World that God so loved that He sent His only begotten into, so that WHOSOEVER believes will not perish. The World that Jesus urged His apostles to go out into. The world He created, the world He will destroy.
Now I am gnostic???
God help us!
I will present the Gospel to any and all as the job of salvation is God's alone. However serious and true fellowship is reserved for all who believe. When Paul asked; what does light to to with darkess or God with Belial was he being a gnostic? When God Hiself said come out and be separate was He being a gnostic??
Chris - Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe Jesus ever refused to sit with people or talk with them because they were in a "different world" than his people.
I agree with both of them. I am in quite the same world as you. As such, I try to understand your position, and will continue to attempt to do so even if you choose that you no longer want to be part of this conversation.
As for your response, "Now I'm a gnostic!" the accusation would actually only apply if you truly think I am in another world than you are, as opposed to what I originally assumed was a metaphorical comment based on our religious positions.
Now I am curious as to which it is.
MaryEllen - I never meant to imply that Chris, or anyone, was required to answer my itemized statements or questions. I merely pointed to the fact that I use that style to illustrate that I am reading the comments and precisely what part I am referring to. As such, I am sticking to the point, as opposed to the implied accusation that I am hijacking the conversation.
Classic dualism holds to the view that there is a battle going on daily between good and evil. It also holds the view that one never knows if good or evil will win the day.
That is an unscriptural and gnostic theology and I would never hold to such a view. All things work together to those who love Him, that He called to His purpose. The victory has already been attained, therefore the outcome is not up in the air.
As for division, what is wrong with that? Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword. I have never held to the "why can't we all get along ?" argument. That isn the religion of the UN and Rodney King (of kings)
Wanderer,
Jesus did talk with those from a different world. He said things like "go and sin no more" we have no extensive writings re: His "conversation" with anyone (I am excluding the apostles) other than the woman at the well. Even there He exposed her sin.
Whatever is in the Scripture is there for specific reasons, and so whatever is not there is left out for specific reasons.
Jesus did not debate the Torah with unbelievers.
Since you admit that you do not believe in Yahweh, Jesus or the Scriptures why would I argue doctrine with you? I see your intent is to discredit the Bible and prove that God is not God.
If you want to talk about politics or the weather fine. In spiritual matters we are in two different worlds.
yet wanderer, you are always welcome here. if Chris choses not to join in the conversation, you atleast have me and Pastor Art, and perhaps Grey Owl and Inheritor will drop by. We can, I suppose get the other side of the coin from word man, or anonymous if they stop by again. I don't expect that Jim guy, since the readers of Slice (nocommentsallowed) were warned to mark and avoid my site.
And Chris, what about Jesus's talking to Nicodemus? The Jews who wanted to kill him? The crowd that wantd a sign? I'm just skimming John. Up to chapter 7. Just at a glance, it seems that most of Jesus' lessons were pointed to those who did not believe in him, primarily the scribes and pharisees who should have known better, or who were leading the people astray. Nice to have a red letter Bible. Finding the long discourses and seeing just who Jesus was talking to.
Chris P. - "I see your intent is to discredit the Bible and prove that God is not God."
Then you are indeed quite powerful, as I have never been able to see with absolute certainty into the heart of another such that I could make such an accusation.
But then, obviously, neither can you, because you are wrong. I have no intention of discrediting the bible, or proving to you that God is not God. I am merely providing the fire with which the metal can be tested. If your mettle can't stand up to the level I will go with this, by all means let me know. I will back down and meddle no more.
As all of you help me to build my faith, I look to offer the same in return. I have never tried to get you to accept my religion, but merely explain yours, defend your own standing, which ultimately will be better for you than any listening.
I have nothing against you, even though it seems to keep getting personal for you. I am having a discussion in which you strive hard to point me out as an outsider, an effort unnecessary since none of us have denied it.
Post a Comment